SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-3-1995 passed in S. T. No. 347/93 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Prembai (P. W. 1) the daughter-in-law of the appellant and the wife of Balram (P. W. 2) was living in village Kundla with her husband Balram, her mother-in-law Kamiabai (D. W. 1), appellant Madanlal and other members of the family. This house consists of three rooms. In one room Prembai and her husband Bairam used to sleep. On 17/18-6-1993 her husband and other members of the family were sleeping in the court yard and she was sleeping inside the room. The appellant, father-in-law of the prosecutrix came in her room and set on her cot, raised her clothes and inserted his male organ in her vagina, she tried to shout but the appellant closed her mouth and threatened her with life and committed sexual intercourse, with her, against her will and consent. He continuously raped her for three days. ( 3 ) ON the fourth day Kamtabai (P. W. 3), the sister of the prosecutrix, while going to Kanad, in the way, she came to house of Prembai. The prosecutrix told her that her father-in-law was committing sexual intercourse with her. She asked her to inform her father so that, he may take her from there. She had also disclosed this incident to Kamiabai and Prakashbai with whom she worked on the well of Tularam where she had gone to work as a labourer. She also told this incident to her mother-in-law, her grand mother-in-law and her husband but she was not believed. On 22-6-1993 Prembai was taken by her father Siddhu (P. W. 6) to his home at Kanad. She narrated the incident to her mother Seemabai (P. W. 3) and her father Siddhu (P. W. 6 ). On 25-6-1993 Prembai presented her written report Ex. P. 2 to the Station House Officer, P. S. Kanad. On 22-6-1993 Prembai was taken by her father Siddhu (P. W. 6) to his home at Kanad. She narrated the incident to her mother Seemabai (P. W. 3) and her father Siddhu (P. W. 6 ). On 25-6-1993 Prembai presented her written report Ex. P. 2 to the Station House Officer, P. S. Kanad. Shri Sudhir Sigh Kushwah (P. W. 7) who registered crime No. 52/93 under section 376 of the I. P. C. against the appellant and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination to District Hospital Shajapur were Dr. Smt. Asha Pandi (P. W. 1) examined her on 26-6-1996 vide report Ex. P. 1. No external injury was found on her body. Two slides from vaginal fluids were prepared. Dr. Kapil Sahay (P. W. 3) radiologically examined her for confirmation of age and opined that she was aged about 16-18 years vide report Ex. D. 3. Shri Kushwah prepared site map. EX. P. 6. He seized slides vide seizure memo. Ex. P. 7. The appellant was arrested on 26-6-1993. He was examined by Dr. A. S. Khan (P. W. 4), who opined that the appellant was capable of committing sexual intercourse vide report, EX. P. 2. ( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. He examined his wife Kamiabai (D. W. 1), his son Balram (D. W. 2) and Dr. AS. Khan (D. W. 3), Mangilal (D. W. 4) and Balram (D. W. 5) in defence. The trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appeal. ( 5 ) SHRI Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Judge committed error in putting reliance on the testimony of Prembai the prosecutrix. The evidence of Sumanbai (P. W. 3), Kamla (P. W. S) and Siddhu (P. W. 6) who are mother, sister and father of the prosecutrix is also not reliable. They have been falsely implicated. Siddhu, the father of the prosecutrix wanted to give Prembai in Natra marriage. To build pressure on the appellant and Balram so that they may not demand compensation, false report was lodged against the appellant. He also submitted that the prosecution did not examine Kamlabai and Prakashbai whom the prosecutrix allegedly narrated the incident on the next day. The statements of the prosecutrix witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. To build pressure on the appellant and Balram so that they may not demand compensation, false report was lodged against the appellant. He also submitted that the prosecution did not examine Kamlabai and Prakashbai whom the prosecutrix allegedly narrated the incident on the next day. The statements of the prosecutrix witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. There is no independent corroborative piece of evidence in this case there fore the evidence of Prembai cannot be relied. Against this Shri Desai, learned Government Advocate, contended that the evidence of Prembai has been corroborated by the statements of Siddhu, Kamlabai and Sumanbai and also by F. I. R. , Ex. P. 1. The trial Judge, under these circumstances, rightly convicted the appellant for committing rape on his daughter-in-law. ( 6 ) IT has come in the evidence of Prembai that when she went to her in laws house after marriage second time, she was sleeping in the middle room of her house. In the night, appellant her fatherin-law Madanlal came there. He sat on her cot and raised her Palate (Petticoat) and inserted his mail organ into her private part. The appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on Sunday. Monday and Tuesday, On Wednesday her sister Kamlabai (P. W. S) came to meet her whom she told her that her father-in-law had been committing rape on her, she should inform her father so that he may take away her from there. On the next day her father Siddhu came and took her to his house at Kanad where she stated her father Siddhu (P. W. S) and mother Sumanbai (P. W. 3) that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her for three days continuously. In cross examination, she stated that when the appellant committed sexual intercourse on the first day with her, she told this fact to her grand-mother in-law who told her that her son (appellant) could riot do such type of thing. She also narrated this incident to her mother-in-law but she said that she was telling lie, no father can commit sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law. She also told this thing to her husband who said that what he could do? She also narrated this incident to her mother-in-law but she said that she was telling lie, no father can commit sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law. She also told this thing to her husband who said that what he could do? ( 7 ) KAMLABAI (P. W. S), the sister of the prosecutrix deposed that while going to Kanad for purchasing clothes, she went to the house of her sister Prembai which was in the way, Prembai told her that since last three days the appellant had been committing sexual intercourse with her. She asked her to inform her father and ask him for taking her away from there. Sumanbai (P. W. 3), the mother of the prosecutrix, testified that Prembai told her that her father-in-law committed sexual intercourse with her similar is the statement of Siddhu (P. W. 6), the father of the prosecutrix. It is true as Shri Siddiqui learned counsel for the appellant, argued the prosecution did not examine Kamlabai and Prakashbai whom the prosecutrix had narrated the incident in the village Kundla. But on this ground alone the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be over thrown. Normally a woman would not falsely implicate for the offence of rape at the cost of her character. In Indian Society, it is very unusual that a lady with a view to implicate a person would go to the extent of stating that she was raped. Admittedly, there was no enmity between the appellant and the prosecutrix or between the family of in laws of Prembai and her parents. It is argued that Siddhu wanted to give Prembai in Natra marriaget to some other person he may not be required to pay moneyas compensation to the appellant he had been falsely implicated. It was also argued that the prosecutrix was involved with one Bhawarlal. The husband Balram had seen her with Bhawarlal. On this, the appellant and, Balram gave her beating, therefore, she falsely implicated the appellant Madanlal. But when we scrutinize the evidence of both the sides, the defence story does not appear to be believable. According to D. W. 1 Kamlabai, the wife of appellant, son Balram, the husband of Prembai had beaten her for her bad character as she was involved with Bhawarlal shoe- maker. But when we scrutinize the evidence of both the sides, the defence story does not appear to be believable. According to D. W. 1 Kamlabai, the wife of appellant, son Balram, the husband of Prembai had beaten her for her bad character as she was involved with Bhawarlal shoe- maker. It is clear from the statement of Kamlabai that her husband, the appellant Madanlal did not beat Prembai, therefore, there was no reason for Prembai to falsely implicate her father-in-law Madanlal and that too for committing rape on her. If she wanted to take revenge on account of her beating, she would have lodged report against her husband for beating or could implicate him for any other offence. The defence that the father of the prosecutrix wanted to give her in Natra marriage and he may not be required to pay money as compensation to Balram, the first husband. he made her to lodge false report against the appellant, also does not appear believable. At the time of incident, Prembai was living in the house of the appellant. It does not appear probable that the prosecutrix thinking that she would be given in Natra in future and her husband would demand compensation, she could lodged false report. Kamlabai and Balram stated that the father of the prosecutrix Siddhu had given Prembai in Natra-marriaget. The father of the prosecutrix, Siddhu had threatened them that if they would hold Panchayat he would falsely implicate them. Inspite of this threat, they held caste Panchayat. Four months after the Panchayat, Police arrested the appellant. This story appears to be false on the face of it. No witness was examined about holding of the Panchayat. ( 8 ) FROM the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecutrix within 2 days after coming from her in-laws house lodged F. I. R. , therefore, this story that her father had given her in Natramarriaget, she falsely implicates the appellant, does not appear to be probable. The husband of the prosecutrix Balram and mother-in-law, Kamlabai went to the extent of making false statement that there is only one room in their house in which Prembai, her husband, her father-in-law, mother-in - law, grand-mother-in-law sister-in-law all used to sleep. Balram stated that he used to sleep in the same room with his wife. This evidence stands falsified by Ex. Balram stated that he used to sleep in the same room with his wife. This evidence stands falsified by Ex. P. 6, the map of the house of appellant. According to this map, the house of the appellant contained three rooms, one big hall and two small rooms, In one small room the prosecutrix and her husband used to sleep. Kamlabai also stated that when prosecutrix went to her parents house, she was having four months, pregnancy but Dr. Smt. Aasha Pandit who examined the prosecutrix on 26-6-1993 did not find her pregnant. All these things go to show that Balram and Kamlabai, husband and mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, are making false statements. As stated above, the statement of Prembai gets corroboration from the evidence of her sister Kamlabai, her mother Sumanbai and her father Siddhu. Her statement also stands corroborated from F. I. R. Ex. p. 3. It is true that medical evidence does not support the prosecutrix but that makes no offence as Smt. Aasha Pandit stated that Prembai was married lady and was in habit having sexual intercourse. Her husband used to have sexual intercourse with her and it was natural. Under these circumstances, the absence of injury on private part does not make her statement false. She was threatened with life. Her grandmother-in-law, mother-in-law and husband did not help her. Under these circumstances, she was helpless and could not resist the accused from committing rape on her. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the prosecution evidence is reliable and the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. P. C. Therefore, the conviction and jail sentence are maintained. However, looking \to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of fine is set-aside, Thus, the appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above. Appeal allowed partly. .